"It is his time free to spend however he wants, but to me it feels icky, whether I'm the canceling partner or the "replacement," that he immediately jumps to "I can't see one partner so I'll just see another." He did that to me a few times when another partner canceled on him (i.e. she canceled, so he called me to see if I was available), and I didn't feel any better about that than I did about this. When he does that, it feels to me like he's viewing us as interchangeable rather than individuals. I'm not sure how well I'm explaining it; it's a bit hard to put into words how I feel about that. What I can say is that when the situation has been reversed, and he has been the one to cancel, there have been times I've found something else to do, but I haven't seen another partner or gone on a date with a potential partner, because to me that feels like replacing him."
To me, this is him meeting his needs. Maybe he wanted adult company/affection/sex. He thought he was getting it with you but you bailed, now should he stay at home sulking and not meeting his needs which over time, leads to misery, or should he be proactive and make other plans to meet those specific needs?
To me, it seems like because you would do the former (stay at home sulking without meeting dating needs), and I have to say that some of that is through a lack of choice rather than values, you want him to do the same or he doesn't love you properly.
It isn't about whether he loves me "properly" (whatever that means). I consider it disrespectful to *anyone* in a poly relationship to be used as an interchangeable piece for anyone else. I *don't* want him to stay home "sulking", or stay home at all. I don't agree with the behavior of saying "Partner A isn't available, so I guess Partner B will do," which is what it feels like to me regardless of whether I'm A or B; it feels like "oh, well, can't have one, will have the other, no big deal." But disagreeing with the behavior doesn't mean I expect anyone else not to do it. It means *I* won't, but what he, or anyone else, does is their choice.
Seeing one partner when another cancels plans feels to me like it's settling... I'm still not phrasing it right. But it feels to me kind of like a "better than nothing" way of thinking. Instead of "Oh, cool, I have an extra chance to see Partner B", to *me* it comes across *to me* as "Oh, I can't see Partner A, so whoever I find will do because it's better than not seeing anyone." Like eating chocolate ice cream when you really want strawberry, because at least it's ice cream. Personally, if I can't have what I want, or what I was planning on, I would prefer having nothing to settling for something that isn't quite it, but I do realize not everyone works that way.
So that might be another thing on which to work: Shifting my perception of it from "B is better than nothing" (or "B is better than A," which was a perception I had this time and is part of what caused the problem) to "Oh, cool, it's a bummer I can't see A, but it's an extra chance to see B."
" it just plain isn't their business and I don't want them listening in on something that isn't their business. "
I think this "need" is unreasonable and a bit of a red flag. If you need your partner to be in complete isolation just to have a "hey, how are you" conversation, that makes me think there is a dynamic or interactions that you want to keep secret from other people. Secrets like that are often connected to unhealthy and even abusive situations. If I was your metamour and seeing all of this go down, I would be very worried for our Hinge because I can bet this would not be natural behavior for them.
I see that you perceive this as problematic, secretive, and concerning behavior. Not everyone does. Two other people have commented in this thread that they have a similar level of preference for privacy. We've also had a number of threads on this forum in which someone says something like "I let my partner read all my texts" and several other people say, "But that's invading the privacy of the people who text you, unless they've given you consent to share it." I don't see wanting a private phone call, and believing a call will be private unless I'm informed otherwise, to be any different from sending a text and believing and expecting that the person I'm sending it to won't show it to anyone else without my consent.
In this particular situation, and a few other times in the past, my boyfriend did not tell me someone else was there. If I am given the opportunity to make an *informed* choice about whether to continue a conversation when someone might overhear, I could deal with that. It's the issue of starting a conversation, believing it's private, with someone who knows I prefer privacy, and *not* being told it isn't private until several minutes into the conversation.
My boyfriend--who I asked specifically about this privacy thing after reading your post this morning--said that he doesn't see it as unreasonable and has had other partners who prefer a similar level of privacy.
I can understand a concern about whether a behavior is abusive, having been on the receiving end of emotional abuse for a few decades. I'm not trying to isolate my boyfriend from other people, just to keep our conversations between us, as I would with anyone. And as I said above, if he *told me* someone was listening, I could be okay with it because I would be aware and could choose not to say certain things, and at least would know if I do say them, my boyfriend isn't the only one listening. There have also been times when he has asked if he could tell another partner about one of our conversations, and I've been fine with that. I just don't want someone listening in *during* the conversation *without* my knowledge. (Truthfully, I prefer they not listen in at all, but I think I can be flexible if I'm told they're listening.)
It isn't about keeping secrets. It's simply that I have a higher need and expectation for privacy, and a higher... respect isn't the right word, but I'm not sure what is. I have the same expectations in regards to other people's privacy as in regards to my own. My boyfriend regularly used to talk to one of his other partners on the phone when I was with him. I asked him to go to another room to have those conversations with her, or to tell me when it was her on the phone so *I* could go to another room, because I considered it wrong for me to hear a conversation that was meant to be between the two of them.
Different people have different needs and expectations. Yours and mine concerning privacy of conversations clearly don't match, but that doesn't mean yours or mine are wrong or abusive. They're just different.
"That sounds to me like I'm supposed to share everything with people I don't know or don't have any desire to connect with just so I'm not isolated."
It is the extreme need to keep all conversations super private to the point your boyfriend has to not answer or isolate himself to speak with you. Right or wrong, that would be exhausting over time.
I see that you feel it would be exhausting. My boyfriend doesn't seem to feel that way.
Also, he *doesn't* constantly have to isolate himself, because most of the time he's alone when I call him anyway. We have a phone call on weekday mornings. At his request, I call him at a time that wakes him up. Four mornings a week, he wakes up alone (the fifth morning, he usually wakes up with me) and usually stays in his bedroom for the duration of the call, which is usually only about 10-15 minutes. If the call goes longer, he might leave the room to start breakfast, housework, etc., but he will tell me he's going downstairs so I know there's a possibility someone else might hear part of the conversation and can decide whether to continue. The one morning last week, when he was with someone else from the beginning of the day, was an exception.
"My intention in posting this thread--though I may not have been clear about it in my first post--was to acknowledge that *I* was not handling the situation well, and try to figure out healthier ways to handle any similar situations that might arise, as well as how to better address my insecurities so I don't have the constant fear of being replaced."
I think this is a case where your actions are potentially harmful, especially as you acknowledge your boyfriend has the tendency to stay in situations essentially "white-knighting". I think you have to be tougher with yourself and simply not carry out these extreme behaviors when provoked. I think you should acknowledge your urge to do something like take all your stuff back because he didn't do what you would have preferred, but not act on it. Get your husband to sit on you if he has to so you do not leave the house. I don't think this is something that can be left until you feel differently and therefore act differently. You need to act first and hope the feelings follow.
I agree with this, except the part about getting my husband to sit on me, since it seems to me that would be depending on *him* to manage my behavior.
In general, more often than not, I *am* able to think about a behavior like taking all my stuff back, and not *do* the behavior but just keep it at, as you say, acknowledging the impulse and reminding myself of the reasons why following that impulse wouldn't be a wise choice. This isn't a constant, or even frequent, issue of mine. The impulses are. I would like to stop even having them. But following through on the impulses is infrequent; however, I follow through on them more than I would like (since I would like to not follow through on them at all), and I recognize that it is extremely problematic and potentially damaging when I do follow through on them, so that is what I want to stop.
